this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
1 points (52.4% liked)

Privacy

40288 readers
428 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In the specified comment GrapheneOS explicitly stated that they have no opposition against non-free binaries and proprietary programs. Doesn't Free software requires it to not host non free binaries? This is not even firmware

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kittykittycatboys@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

GNU does not dictate what is counted as free meow :/

in my opinion it can still be counted as free if it plays nicely with nonfree stuff. the whole Free thibg shouldnt dictate that free software is wholly hostile to nonfree softwarez

[–] fossphi@lemm.ee 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No, the FSF does define what free (as in freedom) software is. There are different licenses for linking (not running) against non free stuff. But being able to run proprietary programs doesn't make something not free. Even on GNU certified free distros, one can run proprietary software. It just doesn't come with it by default.

There's also a looser (imo) definition of open source software which doesn't maintained all four freedoms.

i suppose if ur a language perscriptivist it does, but like.. idm free OSes coming with nonfree drivers. theyr doing the best they can in a hostile environment